/m/site_news

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Only by WAR. Just going off more traditional stats, I'd still go with Trout, but it's not nearly the blowout WAR makes it seem.

How do you "go by traditional stats"? Traditional stats are inadequate to compare two players like Trout and Cabrera - one a leadoff hitter, the other batting 3rd every day, one who derives massive value from defense and baserunning, the other with negative value in those aspects. One plays in a hitters park the other in a pitchers park.

What reason do you have to doubt the WAR figures on Cabrera and Trout? WAR says Cabrera was a -5 run defender and Trout was +20. That seems positive on both of them, I think it's more likely that Cabrera was -10 and Trout was +15.

Via a model that said Ben Zobrist was the best player in the American League in 2011. GIGO.

Zobrist had a +29 defensive rating that year. We both agree that's a miss. Fortunately UZR only had him +7 or so, so FanGraphs WAR estimate of Zobrist is likely correct. He had a classic Ian Kinsler, Chase Utley type season, I'm not sure why him being near the top of the league is garbage.

Baseball Writers are writers who report on the news, ie themselves. The MVP is about who was the most valuable story, to the writers, since it's all about them. In this case they've decided the story is about the triple crown and "nerds" vs "traditionalists" and the most valuable story to the pompous writers is their own defeat of the nerds by voting for miggy c. They create the news, manipulate the results to suit their needs, and then report on it. Sweet gig.

If I were to pick the baseball story of 2012, it would be shutting down Strasburg or Bobby Valentine and the collapse of the Red Sox or the surprising surge of the Orioles and Athletics or the charismatic rookies Bryce Harper and Mike Trout. Carbrera's Triple Crown chase was a September afterthought. Really, was Miguel Cabrera, a more compelling story that Mike Trout? If winning was all that mattered, would the voters who picked Cabrera over Trout, choose the quarterback for the Mid-American Conference Champion for the Heisman, over a quarterback with similar stats from the 3rd best team in the Southeast Conference?

I think Cabrera winning the triple crown was a huge story but I've always been fascinated by the triple crown

I like it too. If the "TC" has a weakness, it's that HR are also RBI, so they're to some extent double-counted. Leading the league in batting average and HR is certainly a big deal just on its own. Cabrera, as mentioned here and there in these threads, had already won an "asynchronous" Triple Crown (in three separate seasons), so 2012 confirms that that was no fluke. If that can't be appreciated as a cool thing to achieve, the appreciater needs to repeat cool school :)

But then again neither, when you get right down to it, is the MVP award. The games that create the data are serious, of course, but it's really of very little moment whether some body or faction bestows the MVP award (*) on the "right" player.

(*) Or even, for that matter, a MVP award. The sport could survive perfectly well without one and, at this late date, the awards serve primarily as an offseason marketing tool for the business.

If the "TC" has a weakness, it's that HR are also RBI, so they're to some extent double-counted.

Yeah this was basically my point. If you're leading the league in BA and HR, it's likely that you're leading in RBI's as well.

The other weakness of the triple crown is that it ignores runs scored which are at least as valuable as RBIs. I think OBP, SLG and SB-CS would be a much more comprehensive triple crown (Braun actually came fairly close this year).

What reason do you have to doubt the WAR figures on Cabrera and Trout?

I'm a little skeptical about the park effects that give Trout a higher OPS+ despite an OPS 40 points lower. I'm much more comfortable conceding that Cabrera was the best hitter in the league but that Trout's defense and baserunning more than make up for it.

But again, it's not even that I doubt the WAR figures that much; it's more that I just don't think the MVP (or any other award or HOF vote) should ever be determined with just a single all encompassing number and nothing more. As long as there's voting, there's room for debate.

And lastly, yet again, I DO think Trout was better and he would've gotten my vote.

f that can't be appreciated as a cool thing to achieve, the appreciater needs to repeat cool school :)

It's about as cool as leading the league in Runs Scored, Stolen Bases and OPS+.

Again, the logic is entirely cyclical. the TC is important because it is important. It is exactly the same logic we see defending the continued infatuation with no-hitters. It's significant because it's a tough thing to do that will get a lot of news. It gets a lot of news because it's significant and it's significant because it gets the news.

If you're leading the league in BA and HR, it's likely that you're leading in RBI's as well.

Usually, yeah. But there's been at least 3 cases that I know of where a player won the batting and homer titles but didn't get the Triple Crown - Ruth in 1924, Mize in 1939, and Ted Williams in 1941.

Sheffield in 1992 and Larry Walker in 1997 were really close to doing this as well, and Thomas and Belle weren't that far off in 1994 either. Bonds narrowly missed in both 2002 and 2004. In all 6 cases, the rbi lead was the biggest obstacle in the way of the Triple Crown. So while your main point is valid, it's certainly not a lock that winning the first two pretty much guarantees a TC.

If you're leading the league in BA and HR, it's likely that you're leading in RBI's as well

And for that matter in Runs as well. Cabrera was the first TC winner not to lead his league in Runs Scored since the mid-1930s, when there were several winners who didn't. It's no real knock on him that he didn't lead in Runs; like RBI, context plays a big part here, and Hornsby (once), Klein, Foxx, and Gehrig also fell short in R while leading in the TC categories.

I think OBP, SLG and SB-CS would be a much more comprehensive triple crown (Braun actually came fairly close this year).

Wouldn't the problem with this is it would be damn near impossible to find anyone who could pull it off (unless Trout somehow gets better)? Cobb is probably the only guy whose ever done it (likely twice, though we don't have the CS data to be certain), but I doubt we'll ever see anyone pull it off again. And as impressive as it would be, it doesn't have a lot of value as a stastistical milestone if no one can actually attain it.

BTW, how would Braun be described as being fairly close this year? He didn't lead in any of the three categories.

there's been at least 3 cases that I know of where a player won the batting and homer titles but didn't get the Triple Crown - Ruth in 1924, Mize in 1939, and Ted Williams in 1941.

Sheffield in 1992 and Larry Walker in 1997 were really close to doing this as well, and Thomas and Belle weren't that far off in 1994 either. Bonds narrowly missed in both 2002 and 2004. In all 6 cases, the rbi lead was the biggest obstacle in the way of the Triple Crown.

Bonds and Thomas, at least, made the critical mistake of walking a whole lot.

I'm just saying that the definition of slugging is total bases / AB. Just like how Mike Trout leads the league in runs and runs/PA (probably). No need to list both.

As I said, while the two categories are obviously related, there isn't a lot of overlap in terms of the actual leaders in each category (in the same way that the hits leader and the BA leader probably aren't the same guy all that often).

In Trout's case, you're almost certainly right (given that he was the counting stat leader despite the missed month of PT).

I think OBP, SLG and SB-CS would be a much more comprehensive triple crown (Braun actually came fairly close this year).

I would have figured Willie Mays as a good candidate to pull this off; but it looks like the closest he came was in 1958, when he led the league in Stolen Bases (31, while only being caught six times) and in OPS; but didn't lead the league in either OBP or SLG.

The Triple Crown is "hard" not because there aren't hitters who can do each of the three things well, but because it is flukey to actually lead the league in each category.

Pujols/Thomas/McGwire/Bonds/Sheffield/Ramirez/Bagwell/Belle/Piazza/ARod/Vlad/Griffey... All of these players could have won the silly Triple Crown at any point. By simple virtue of fluke - similar to how Roger Clemens never threw a no-hitter - they didn't. So bleeping what. Cabrera's OPS+ was 165 - far from historic, and not among the top 400 of all time. This blind worship of the Triple Crown is childish. It is silliness at its height. RBIs count? Walks and doubles don't? Jesus.

That might be even harder. I'd suspect the walks leadership would almost eliminate you from total base consideration.

The most recent player to lead his league in walks and total bases was David Ortiz in 2006. The last NL player to do it (that I caught, anyway; I'm searching by eye) was Mike Schmidt in 1981. Dwight Evans also did it the same year.

Bonds led the league in total bases once - 1993, when Lenny Dykstra beat him by 3 walks. That was the only time between '92-'97 that Bonds didn't win the walking title.

Going back further gives us an entrant in the "well THAT makes sense" category, as Mantle pulled off the walks-TB combo once, in 1958. He also had average and TB in '56 while finishing second in walks - but he was 39 behind Ed Yost, who drew 151 free passes that year.

That, of course, brings us back to Ted Williams, who led the AL in both walks and total bases on FOUR occasions: 1942, '46, '47 and '49; given the intervening time in the military, that's actually four times in five seasons. Two of them were combined with a batting title - the '42 and '47 seasons, in which he also won the more traditional Triple Crown. Some things apparently never change.

Jimmie Foxx won this type of Triple Crown as well, albeit not in the same year as his other one; he led in walks, TB, and BA in 1938.

Ty Cobb came absurdly close in 1915, leading the league in average and TB, and finishing one walk behind Eddie Collins for the league lead. Neither Cobb nor Collins ever came especially close to their walk totals from that year again - it was Collins's career high by 18, and Cobb's by 33. That same year, Gavvy Cravath led the NL in walk and total bases, but hit only .285.

There are two other 20th-century BA/BB/TB Triple Crowns - and they occurred in the same year, 1924. Babe Ruth, who simultaneously led the league in both walks and total bases 5 separate times, won his only batting title in one of those years, at the same time as Rogers Hornsby, who won five matched pairs of batting and total base titles and combined one of them with a walks lead (one of the three he'd end up with).

Cool research. That's a 3 times rarer than the triple crown and I think is an improvement in terms of coverage, but maybe it's a little too rare. The only problem is that BA is too tied up with the other two categories. BB/TB/SB would be the ultimate triple crown, but I don't think anyone's done that.

Pujols/Thomas/McGwire/Bonds/Sheffield/Ramirez/Bagwell/Belle/Piazza/ARod/Vlad/Griffey... All of these players could have won the silly Triple Crown at any point. By simple virtue of fluke - similar to how Roger Clemens never threw a no-hitter - they didn't. So bleeping what.

Fly those flags proudly and don't fret, Cubs fans -- you could have won the World Series several times since 1908.

I've never seen how this was such a bad selection. Mitchell had a 192 OPS+ in 640 PA, Clark had a 175 in 675. That's a fairly significant advantage to Mitchell, even if he has the lower OBP (and it wasn't like he was Andre Dawson - Mitchell's OBP was .388). Both grounded into only 6 DPs. Clark has a slight advantage in stealing, but neither was any great shakes on the bases. Mitchell led the league in homers by a huge margin (he had 47, Hojo was second with only 36). Clark certainly had an advantage on defense, but he's a first baseman, and not Keith Hernandez. Without advanced defensive stats, which didn't exist at the time, how could you have conclusively said that his D made up for 18 points of OPS+? I'm not going to argue with anyone who says they'd have voted for Clark, but this result was certainly not a travesty.

How do you "go by traditional stats"? Traditional stats are inadequate to compare two players like Trout and Cabrera - one a leadoff hitter, the other batting 3rd every day, one who derives massive value from defense and baserunning, the other with negative value in those aspects. One plays in a hitters park the other in a pitchers park.

I don't think it's so difficult. Traditional baseball fans should understand the context, different batting order positions, different defensive positions, even differences in parks. I look at the two of them and see Trout leading in runs as a leadoff hitter and Cabrera leading in RBI as a three hitter and it's a wash. They both did what they were supposed to do for the position they hit in (you can also look at Trout with 83 RBI and Cabrera with 109 runs and say they both did a great job for their batting order position in each of those categories as well). BA is also a wash since Trout would have won the batting title with 3 more hits, or 3 fewer for Cabrera. HR go to Cabrera, but 30 out of the leadoff spot is huge so it doesn't give any sort of large advantage to Cabrera. Cabrera is a tick behind Trout in OBP, but way ahead in SLG; however, Trout has all those stolen bases and, even after adjusting for CS and the difference between an SB and a double or triple, he makes up the difference in SLG. So in terms of most traditional hitting stats, with steals factored in, they are virtually indistinguishable.

After that it's not difficult to say Trout was clearly a superior base runner and defender, not to mention playing the majority of his time at a more valuable defensive postion. Even traditional baseball fans should understand this. At that point you can easily declare Trout your MVP, or, in a close call, give the nod to Cabrera due to his playing in 22 more games, which does have significant value. It's a lot closer from that perspective than it is if you look at WAR, but it is possible to evaluate them adequately, IMO.

I seem to remember Clark being clutch that year, although looking at the stats, it's not as dramatic as I thought it might be. He was 953 OPS on the year, yet 1061 with men on, 1169 with RISP, 1313 with 2 outs/RISP, and 1186 in "high leverage" as defined by B-R.

But yeah, of course even if Clark should have won, it's not comparable to the '87 votes, the Juan Gonzalez ones, etc. (I disagree, though, that we only get to express our opinion when the mistake is sufficiently large.)

Pujols/Thomas/McGwire/Bonds/Sheffield/Ramirez/Bagwell/Belle/Piazza/ARod/Vlad/Griffey... All of these players could have won the silly Triple Crown at any point.

As mentioned already, Mac and his .263 career average weren't going to win any batting titles. His career high of .312 would have led the league, what, like twice in the entire history of batting titles?

And the flip side of your point is this; the fact that none of those great hitters (plus the likes of Ruth, Aaron, Mays, etc) ever won it makes it MORE impressive and cool that someone finally did, not less (for those of us who care about such things).

1989 NL: Mitchell over Will Clark. They chose the wrong Giant.

I've never seen how this was such a bad selection.

I included that one just cuz I've heard lots of Giants fans (not here) complain about it. I don't remember thinking it was terrible myself, but I was also 10, so take that with a grain of salt. Feel free to remove it from the list if you wish.

BB/TB/SB would be the ultimate triple crown, but I don't think anyone's done that.

Why are stolen bases so important all of a sudden? And if you want to include them, it should be SB minus CS, cuz just listing stolen bases alone doesn't give an accurate portrayal of value. There's been plenty of times (like when Canseco and Vlad were gunning for 40/40) that a player racked up lots of SB without a good percentage just by sheer volume of attempts (not that this applies to Trout, of course).

BA/BB/TB is good, but includes no baserunning. Problem with trying to include baserunning is there is no single metric; SB would be silly (I would've won the TC if it weren't for the valueless Vince Coleman in my league...). RUNS woudl not be bad, if you don't mind hte team dependent thing.

As mentioned already, Mac and his .263 career average weren't going to win any batting titles. His career high of .312 would have led the league, what, like twice in the entire history of batting titles?

Yes, yes, one of my examples was bad. Whatever. The point remains.

And the flip side of your point is this; the fact that none of those great hitters (plus the likes of Ruth, Aaron, Mays, etc) ever won it makes it MORE impressive and cool that someone finally did, not less (for those of us who care about such things).

The TC is not impressive given that we know how to measure offense, and RBIs are not a part of that, and walks/doubles are, along with park adjustments and some other things.

I'm a little skeptical about the park effects that give Trout a higher OPS+ despite an OPS 40 points lower.

I've heard a lot of this and I just don't get it. Figuring out the offensive context that a player plays in isn't a guess. We know the runs scored and allowed in Angel home and road games. Likewise for the TIgers.

And the respective park factors for Trout and Cabrera have stayed consistent over the recent past. IE the single year and 3 year park factors are the same for both teams.

I've heard a lot of this and I just don't get it. Figuring out the offensive context that a player plays in isn't a guess. We know the runs scored and allowed in Angel home and road games. Likewise for the TIgers.

Depends what you're using them for. If you want to say a run scored/run created in Anaheim is more valuable than one created in CoPa, tough to argue against. If you want to say the differences in environment explain the differences in offensive output between Trout and Cabrera, no sale.

I think the three elements of the Triple Crown should be as separated as possible: hitting, baserunning, and fielding.

Although to make them all counting stats, I guess I'd go Hits, Stolen Bases, and Putouts? That sounds difficult to achieve, and very position-dependent. Rickey Henderson did in 1981, and he and Ichiro are the only ones I checked.

Wait, that's like saying that Texas is not impressive given that we know how to measure surface area. I mean, what's the least-impressive TC season? Chuck Klein (given that he only hit 28 home runs, and chipped 20 of them over the wall in the Baker Bowl). Even at that, Klein had a hellacious monstrous offensive season, relative to his league. It is impressive to win a Triple Crown, even if there might be other things more impressive.

the respective park factors for Trout and Cabrera have stayed consistent over the recent past. IE the single year and 3 year park factors are the same for both teams

As stated, everything above is true. The OPS+ skepticism arises because Anaheim had a multiyear Park Factor of 102 as recently as 2009. The single year PF has been 105, 102, 94, 93, 91 over the past 5 years.

As stated, everything above is true. The OPS+ skepticism arises because Anaheim had a multiyear Park Factor of 102 as recently as 2009. The single year PF has been 105, 102, 94, 93, 91 over the past 5 years.

It's undeniable that runs have been scored at a significantly lower clip in Anaheim over the past three years*, and thus Trout's numbers have more value in that context than ones put up elsewhere. The disconnect is that we often label these things Park Effects (unlike the more accurate, Park Factors, that Ron did).

When we call it Park Effects, it suggests that the park itself is suppressing offense, and I'm kind of skeptical that Anaheim really went from a slightly hitter-friendly park in 2009 to an offensive hellhole in 2010.* That ol' stathead standby, random variation (and maybe some modest change in weather/conditions) seems like a more likely explanation for the change.

* OK, I'm assuming the basic arithmetic supporting those lower park factors is correct. I haven't checked, nor would I ever be inclined to do so.

When we call it Park Effects, it suggests that the park itself is suppressing offense, and I'm kind of skeptical that Anaheim really went from a slightly hitter-friendly park in 2009 to an offensive hellhole in 2010.

Park effects are computed in context of the other ballparks, so let's see here...

New Yankee opened in 2009 and has been significantly more of a hitters' park than old Yankee.
Target Field opened in 2010 and it looks to be about the same as the old Hump.
The Royals made some changes to Kauffman Stadium between 2007 and 2009 which on balance look like they're also a wash.

The Angels also play more road games in Texas than do the Tigers, which depending on how the park factors are computed might drive the numbers down in that Texas is one of the best parks for hitters in the AL.

The Angels also play more road games in Texas than do the Tigers, which depending on how the park factors are computed might drive the numbers down in that Texas is one of the best parks for hitters in the AL.

The Angels have been playing more games in Texas for a long time, and Texas has been a hitter's park since it's opened, so that can't possibly be the reason.

My point wasn't about park factors as they relate to Trout vs. Cabrera. As I said, the simple fact that offense was down in Anaheim in 2012, regardless the reason, elevates the value of the runs that were produced there. I'm just skeptical that the park itself has been much of the reason for the lower offensive context (and nothing about the changes at the other parks gives me reason to waver in that skepticism).

The Angels also play more road games in Texas than do the Tigers, which depending on how the park factors are computed might drive the numbers down in that Texas is one of the best parks for hitters in the AL.

They also play extra road games in Oakland and Seattle, both of which are among the best pitchers' parks in the AL.

I look at the two of them and see Trout leading in runs as a leadoff hitter and Cabrera leading in RBI as a three hitter and it's a wash.

Cabrera had 36 more Runs + RBIs compared to Cabrera. So you need 40 runs of defense and baserunning to make Trout better. Not sure most traditionalist really know the scale of defense and baserunning. Also they definitely won't consider park factors or double plays.

Now if by tradionalist you mean BA/OBP/SLG than yes I think anyone using those stats would consider Trout much better overall.

Why are stolen bases so important all of a sudden? And if you want to include them, it should be SB minus CS, cuz just listing stolen bases alone doesn't give an accurate portrayal of value.

I agree that it should be SB-CS but I'm just going for simplicity. Three stats that provide the most coverage of player value while also not being too rare. TB, BB and SB pretty much encompasses all of a player's value IMO. It shows us how many times he got on base via the walk and how many total bases he got with his hits and then what he did when he got on base. The stats are correlated with eachother (it's really hard to lead in BB and TB simultaneously) but they aren't directly related in the same way that RBIs and HRs are.

The problem with that triple crown is that I don't think it's ever been done. Ty Cobb lead in OBP/SLG/SB twice but never in BB or TB. So that's why I subbed out SB for BA. Then it's happened six times.

BA/BB/TB is good, but includes no baserunning. Problem with trying to include baserunning is there is no single metric; SB would be silly (I would've won the TC if it weren't for the valueless Vince Coleman in my league...). RUNS woudl not be bad, if you don't mind hte team dependent thing.

BA/BB/TB also misses park effects.

It's funny this comment is the exact opposite of the preceeding one. If you're trying to acutely measure value you're going to end up with someone close to WAR. The point of the triple crown is to pick 3 really simple stats that provide wide coverage of a player's value.

I think the three elements of the Triple Crown should be as separated as possible: hitting, baserunning, and fielding.

It's impossible to encompass hitting in one stat (unless you use wOBA, but then you're just going back to WAR) and fielding measurements right now are too imprecise.

I think you should be trying to encompass 3 of the 4 major skills (contact, power, walking and running).